DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Acknowledgement is made of remarks filed 05/07/2026. The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al (GB 2034300 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda et al teaches a glass composition comprising, when converted to molar percentage, 52.8 mol% SiO2, 12.6 mol% Al2O3, 14.1 mol% B2O3, 9.7 mol% Na2O, 5.7 mol% TiO2, 1.9 mol% ZnO, and 3.2 mol% Cs2O. The amounts of each of these components thus fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim. The (R2O-Al2O3)/B2O3 value is -0.20 as is thus less than 0.25. The R2O/Al2O3 value is 0.8. As such, the further compositional limitations of instant claim 1 are met, and the glass of Ikeda anticipates that of the instant claim
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass contains 14.1 mol% B2O3.
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass contains 9.7 mol% Na2O.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass contains 12.6 mol% Al2O3.
Regarding claim 7, the R2O content of the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass is 9.7 mol%.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass contains 0 mol% P2O5.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass is free of Li2O, MgO, and CaO.
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned Ikeda et al example glass contains 0 mol% SnO2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota et al (WO 2020/021933 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ryoto et al teaches a strengthened glass composition comprising 40-60 wt% SiO2, 15-25 wt% Al2O3, 0-13.5 wt% B-2O3, 12-24 wt% Na2O, and 0-3 wt% MgO (see Abstract). As can be seen, the ranges each overlap the corresponding range of the instant claim. Ryoto et al teaches an embodiment wherein the glass comprises, when converted to molar percentage, 53.6 mol% SiO2, 12.0 mol% B2O3, 12.0 mol% Al2O3, 19.2 mol% Na2O, with trace amounts of CaO, ZrO2, and SnO2 (see Table at paragraph 0089, example no. 5). Thus, the Ryoto et al glass contains components falling within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim apart from the higher Na2O content. As discussed above, Ryoto et al teaches a range for Na2O of 12-24 wt%, and thus teaches that glasses can be produced having sodium oxide in amounts less than the 17.97 wt% of the aforementioned example no. 5 embodiment. For instance, Ryoto et al example nos. 7-10 each contain Na2O in amounts that would fall within the range of the instant claim. Because of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to arrive at a glass meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim through routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping ranges taught by Ryoto et al. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Similarly, Ryoto et al does not teach an embodiment wherein the (R2O-Al2O3)/B2O3 and R2O/Al2O3 values fall within the ranges of the instant claim 11, but the closely overlapping ranges for each component of the instant claims would allow one to produce glasses wherein these relative content limitations are also met.
Ryoto et al teaches that the inventive glass is used to form an ion-exchanged glass article, and teaches that the Young’s modulus of the glass can be 70 MPa. Each limitation of the instant claim 11 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 13, Ryoto et al teaches that the inventive glasses have liquidus viscosities of at least 104.3 dPa, and teaches embodiments wherein the liquidus viscosity is 105.0 dPa. This converts to 100 kP and thus meets the further limitations of instant claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Ryoto et al teaches a compressive stress value of 500 MPa or greater (see claim 6). This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the compressive stress range of the instant claim. Regarding claim 15, Ryoto et al teaches a glass thickness of 0.200 mm (200 µm) or greater. The thickness ranges overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The compressive stress depth of the glass article is 15 µm or greater. This range also overlaps and renders obvious the corresponding range of claim 15, and the instant claim is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, the article thickness of compressive stress layer depth ranges taught by Ryoto et al are such that the depth of compression as a percentage of article depth can fall within the range of 5-20%. For instance, the recited minimums, discussed above, would lead to a compressive layer depth of 7.5% of the article thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at an article having a relative depth of stress layer falling within the instantly claimed range through routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping Ryoto et al ranges.
Regarding claim 17, Ryoto et la teaches that the central tensile stress in the inventive glass article can be 200 MPa.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, Ryoto et al teaches a glass article that is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims through routine optimization and experimentation, has equivalent liquidus viscosity values, and has equivalent compressive layer depth and central tensile stress values. This equivalent glass would therefore necessarily also be equivalent in terms of the resultant peak central tension when bent to the platen spacing of the instant claim, and the value for this bent tension would be 340 MPa or greater. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 19, Ryoto et al teaches that the inventive glass is used as a cover glass in mobile phones or mobile PCs. A mobile phone or PC is a consumer electronic device that necessarily comprises a housing with front, back, and side surfaces; electrical components including a controller, memory, and a display within said housing; and wherein the display is necessarily on a front surface of the housing. The Ryoto et al teaching that the glass is used as a cover glass indicates that it is disposed over the display. As such, Ryoto et al teaches a device meeting each further structural and component limitation of instant claim 19, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, Ryoto et al teaches a glass article meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim, which are also the same compositional limitations as recited in claim 11. Ryoto et al teaches that the glass article is strengthened by a process of ion exchange wherein the glass is immersed in an ion-exchange solution for 4 hours at 430 °C. The resultant compressive stress layer extends from the surface to a depth of compression, and Ryoto et al teaches that the compressive stress value is 500 MPa or greater (see claim 6). This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the compressive stress range of the instant claim. Each limitation of the process claim 20 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5-6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a glass composition meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein the ratio limitations of instant claims 5 and 6 are also met.
The prior art also fails to teach or suggest a glass article meeting each limitation of instant claim 11, and wherein the Young’s modulus of the article is 45-68 GPa.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the previously cited example 42 glass taught by Ikeda correctly indicate that the conversion to molar percentage is incorrect and that said example glass does not anticipate instant claim 1. However, the remarks are not persuasive at showing patentable distinctness of the instant claims over Ikeda because Ikeda provides further teachings that do, in fact, anticipate each instant claim limitation. Example 43 in Table 3 of Ikeda comprises, when converted to molar percentage, 52.8 mol% SiO2, 12.6 mol% Al2O3, 14.1 mol% B2O3, 9.7 mol% Na2O, 5.7 mol% TiO2, 1.9 mol% ZnO, and 3.2 mol% Cs2O. The amounts of each of these components thus fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim. The (R2O-Al2O3)/B2O3 value is -0.20 as is thus less than 0.25. The R2O/Al2O3 value is 0.8. As such, the further compositional limitations of instant claim 1 are met, and the glass of Ikeda anticipates that of the instant claim. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive at showing that the instant claims are patentably distinct over the previously applied prior art to Ikeda.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the previously applied rejections over Ryoto et al, applicant is correct that the composition presented in the Office Action for the example no. 5 glass contained values for ZnO, BaO, and ZrO2 that are not present in the Ryoto et al teachings. However, these component contents were not taken into account when converting the composition as taught by Royoto et al into molar percentage, and as such the percentages for each component (SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3, and Na2O) of the cited example no. 5 glass fall within those of instant claim 11. Applicant confirms as much in their arguments, wherein the amounts for each of the aforementioned four necessary components of the instant claim are the same as those shown in the previous Office Action. As such, the pertinent information as to SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3, and Na2O contents is and was correct, and applicant’s contentions regarding the extraneous ZnO, BaO, ZrO2 values is not persuasive at showing patentable distinctness over the Ryoto et al prior art. Applicant argues that said example no. 5 glass does not have (R2O-Al2O3)/B2O3 and R2O/Al2O3 values falling within the instantly claimed ranges; however, as discussed in the previous Office Action, this example was not cited as anticipatory, and the assertion that these ratio values were met was not part of the grounds of rejection previously issued. Thus, this argument is also not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited examples 7-10 are too different from i.e. example 5 to be able to guide one of ordinary skill in the art in preparing glasses from the Ryoto teachings. However, these glasses are cited to show that broader portions of the ranges taught by Ryoto et al are also exemplified. The Ryoto et al teachings cannot be understood to convey only what is given in specific exemplary embodiments, but instead the prior art must be considered in terms of all that the breadth of its teachings convey. In the case of Ryoto et al, the ranges for each component are a part of these teachings, and those of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Ryoto et al disclosure encompass glasses formed from within said ranges. One would have understood that Ryoto et al is not meant to be limited to only those specific and limited embodiments disclosed as examples. Thus, the portions of the ranges overlapping those of the instant claims would render obvious the corresponding range limitations because one would have understood that glasses could be formed from these overlapping portions. The examples 7-10 were cited to provide a further showing, beyond the overlapping range teachings, that Ryoto et al teaches and would convey the knowledge of to a skilled artisan component values that fall within the corresponding instant claim ranges. Therefore, applicant’s arguments based on the supposed difference between said examples and other exemplary glasses are not persuasive because these example 7-10 glasses are not cited as anticipatory.
Applicant argues that Ryoto et al does not specifically teach (R2O-Al2O3)/B2O3 and R2O/Al2O3 values of the inventive glasses; that is, these particular two mathematical relationships are not discussed. Applicant contends that, because of this Ryoto et al does not teach a result effective variable that could lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the instantly claimed compositions from the overlapping ranges taught therein. This argument is not persuasive because recognition of these two particular mathematical relationships between component contents, and explicit disclosure thereof, is not the only manner in which a result effective variable can be taught by a piece of prior art. Contents of the aforementioned compositional component can be optimized in order to achieve a result different than that which applicant had in mind, and teachings as to such differing rationales for optimization would constitute result effective variables, even if they are not expressed using the ratios chosen by applicant. In this instant case, Ryoto et al teaches that Al2O3 content enhances ion exchange performance, and is a component that enhances strain point and Young's modulus; B2O3 content is taught to be chosen so as to lower the softening point, lower the liquidus temperature, high-temperature viscosity, and density. Na2O and Li2O (R2O) are components taught by Ryoto et al to enhance ion exchange performance, and to enhance meltability, moldability, and bending workability. As can be seen, each component involved in the ratio limitations of the instant claims are taught to be result effective variables, in that their contents directly affect properties of the Ryoto et al glasses. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s arguments, a sufficient result effective variable is present to support the previously issued grounds of obviousness rejection based on the overlapping ranges.
It is not a requirement for a piece of prior art to teach a result effective variable in the same manner chosen by applicant, and the distinctness of the claims should not rest on the manner in which a composition is expressed, i.e. compositional content shown by ratio instead of amount ranges. Thus, the previously issued grounds of rejection are maintained.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected. Claims 5-6 and 12 are objected to.
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW9 July 2026
Prosecution Insights